Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/22

 JOHNSON V. PHILADELPHIA, WILMINGTON <fc BALTIMORE E. CO. T �Eule to show cause why case should not be remancled to state �court. �This was an action at law, brought in a state court" of Pennsylvania by Caroline Johnson against the Philadelphia, Wiltnington & Baltimore Kailrpad Company. Defendant flled a petition for removal, under the act of congress of March 8, 1875, setting forth that defendant was a corporation formed by the union of three corporations, viz., the Philadelphia, Wilmington & Balti- more Kailroad Company, which was chartered by the state of Pennsylvania, the Wilmington & Susquehanna Railrqad Company, which was formed by the union of two other railroads, one chartered by the state of Delaware and the other by the state of Maryland, and the Baltimore & Port Deposit Eailroad Company, chartered by the state of Maryland; that under authority conferred by concurrent legislation of the three states named, articles of union were entered into by said three corporations, by which they were united in one body corporate, under the name of the Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Eailroad Company, with all the rights, privileges, and immunities which each and all of them possessed under their respective charters ; and that the defend- ant was thus, at the time this suit was brought, a corporation chartered by and existing under the laws of the states of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. Under this petition the case was removed to the United States circuit court. PlaintifFs then obtained the present rule to remand. �George Haldorn, forplaintiff. �Thomas Hart, Jr., and James E. Gowen, for defendant. The court, MoKennan, G. J., and Butler, D. J., made the rule ab- Bolute, and directed the clerk to certify the record to the state court. �ITOTE. The recent dissent of Judge Kelson in Nashua & Lowell E. v. Bos- ton & Lowell R. 8 Fed. Eep. 458, from what he there says " seems " to have been the conclusion in the above case, renders a f ull report of the case impor- tant ; and it is therefore publlshed, although no written opinion bas ever been filedi It is to be observed that in the above case, as well as in the later cases of C. <£ W. I. R. Co. V. L. S. & M. 8. Ry. Co. 5 Fed. Rep. 19, and Uphoff y. Chicago, 8t. L. & N. 0. R. Co. Id. 545, which followed its ruling. the Consoli- dated railroad was sued as defendant in a court of one of the states by which it was chartered. The plaintiff had the right to treat it as a corporation of the state in which he sued, and the railroad eompany could not defeat that right or remove the cause by subsequently alleging a foreign citizenship under its other charters. In the Massachusetts case, however, the situation of the parties was exactly reversed; the Consolidated corporation being the plaintiff instead of defendant, and having eleeted to sue as a foreign citizen by virtue of its foreign charter. Though an individual may insist upon suing such a corporation under the charter granted by bis ovvn state, it does not necessarily follow that he can object to being sued by it under the charter granted by a foreign state. It will be seen, therefore, by a comparison of the faets in the two cases, that the decision in the Pennsylvania case does not necessarily con- flict with the decision rendered in the Massachusetts case. — [Rep, ��� �